Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

2008: Endorsements, Fund-Raising and Primaries

By Michael Falcone August 29, 2007 9:31 amAugust 29, 2007 9:31 am

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have been working hard to round up support from the country’s major labor unions, which have long been an important source of fund-raising dollars and campaign volunteers. The wooing was on display at the presidential debate in Chicago sponsored by the A.F.L.-C.I.O earlier this month.

So, what could a big union endorsement mean for Democratic presidential candidate and Connecticut Senator Christopher J. Dodd, who has been polling in the low single digits?

Mr. Dodd officially receives the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a 280,000 member group, today. The Times’s Sarah Wheaton noted that the show of support by the major union “lends a little heft” to the Dodd campaign:

“The endorsement of America’s firefighters isn’t just a great validation for Senator Dodd’s leadership, but also is going to provide the boots on the ground in the early states that are going to make the difference,” said Hari Sevugan, the campaign’s communication director. “One of the reasons we’re so excited about this endorsement is because firefighters have proven that they know how to win.”

The question remains, did the union organization decide against choosing among the major contenders in the top tier at this point, so as to avoid potentially offending a candidate not of its choosing who might ultimately become the party’s nominee? The organization defends its choice, saying Mr. Dodd has been a decades-long ally of firefighters.

Not to be outdone, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, announced the endorsement of the United Transportation Union, which represents 125,000 current and former transportation workers.

Yesterday, Mike Allen and John F. Harris of the Politico reported that Illinois Senator Barack Obama won the support of L. Douglas Wilder, the mayor of Richmond, Va. and the state’s former governor. Mr. Wilder, who was also the nation’s first elected black governor, predicted that Mr. Obama would do well among Southern voters.

Following a move by the Democratic National Committee to sanction Florida for holding a primary on a date earlier than party rules allow, The Times’s Marc Santora reports today that the Republicans are also looking to impose their own punishment on several states, including New Hampshire and Florida, for similar infringements of party rules:

The action by Republicans and Democrats to move against states holding early contests is a rare instance of the two parties moving in concert, in this case to regain control over a rapidly evolving primary calendar that has thrust the nominating system into deep uncertainty just months before it is to begin.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who has made Sept. 11 a cornerstone of his presidential bid, plans to return to Ground Zero on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks this year. But now that he’s a presidential candidate, some New Yorkers say his appearance “might inject politics” into the event, according to The Times’s Michael Cooper.

It is money in the bank. Obama will win the South Carolina and New Hamshpire primary. No matter how you pundicts analyze this, there is one thing that is for sure, Independent will decide NH, and the African American vote will decide the SC primary come 2008.

FYI: Most polls that have been touted by the media failed to factor in the power of independent in the primary and does not include the number of Republicans who are more likely to go caucus for Obama in IOWA and Nevada. Most polls touted by media are likely Democratic voters , in this age of cell phone e
i wonder if the pollster even bother to factor in those young folks who will determine the outcome of this election.

Another thing, most value voters will vote for Obama. Obama’s candidacy is like a v alue stock t hat is not investor ‘s favorite but bounce back when they started paying attention. Investors in this case is synonymous to the registered democratic voters.

NYT is so biased that it can’t simply state all that LA Times reported because HRC is involved. The guy has been bankrolling Hillary’s campaign since 2004. It makes me so sad that NYT, Chris Mathews, Mike Barnicle, Joe Scarborough, and host of other Clinton cronies in the media will always refuse the truth. They will lick their shame when they are suffer the impending defeat in the polls come 2008. I have stopped watching all of them, I need other patriots to call them to order ASAP!!! You can bombard them with emails.

It is really a pity. The media has spent several months since the Junior Senator from New York announced her candicacy in January to dig dirt on her but all they could come out with are rumors, innuendo and non-stories. This lady cannot be derailed and I have the feeling that by the time the Nevada Caucus comes around, Obama, Edwards and Richardson would be fundraising for Hillary for a possible but illusive second fiddle spot on the ticket.

#1. Nice attempt at humor. Why does Obama keep getting these ancients to endorse his campaign. I thought that Wilder would have been in an old folks home somewhere. He didn’t have the best of reputations did he? Go figure.

Clinton is smart. Her husband also did as much damage to the Democratic Party as any Republican in the last two hundred years. I don’t need the stress. She also is another corporate puppet, brunches with Murdoch in Manhattan, picnics with McCain in Baghdad when the war was WINNABLE and now she still says it’s ok to stay in Baghdad and keep killing the residents to protect our “national interests.” BLACK GOLD, TEXAS TEA! Well folks, as reporter Antonia Juhasz wrote in the LA Times, Dec. 8, 2003, recommendation number 63 of the Iraqi Study Group calls on the US to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investmentin Iraq’s oil sector by the international community and international energy companies.” Clinton says all this is okey dokey. Wrong! Number 26 says make the Iraqis rewrite the constitution to privatize the oil on an “urgent basis,” number 28 says put control of the oil in the hands of the central government and number 63 says the US govt. should “provide techincal assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law.” What Bush and Republicans cooked up is 70 percent of revenue forever (at least) and control of development and production forever. Clinton and 56 other Democrats have repeatedly voted saying this is okey dokey, building the military bases is okey dokey, shooting the residents is okey dokey and building the largest embassy on Earth behing big, big walls is just okey dokey. These are just a few reasons I as a liberal don’t want Hillary nominated. She, however, may be smarter than any of them except Kucinich.

The details of the Hsu story are pretty damning, if you ask me – a lower middle class working family that votes ‘sporadically’ and never made any political campaign contributions in their 22 years before 2004 in America, suddenly gives the maximum allowed per family member on the exact same day as Hsu, on at least four separate occasions? It’s not necessarily Hillary’s fault, but it is an indication of the shady supporters she has. She should lose for other, more legitimate reasons (less experience than Barack, and more importantly, the fact that she wants to be President for HER, not for the country).

Good for Dodd. Thus far, we’ve heard more than enough about Hillary and Obama and not enough about the second tier.
#4: “…good and well-deserved reasons.”
For Hillary, is that name recognition, money and connections?

Imagine the Clinton campaign staff furiously dialing to muster up some audience members… and the revenues of the radio stations in IA and NH will benefit as the campaign pours $$$ into ads calling everyone to come to the campaign events…

I read somewhere that when President Clinton and Mrs Clinton make joint campaign appearences that they must bear the cost of President Clinton’s security detail… anyone know how much that costs?

Bee has is right. I am a young voter and neither I nor do any of my friends have a land line. If a pollster did call me I would tell them that Barack is my candidate of choice, and the same goes for all the young voters I know.

Brian, the LATimes story reported that Hsu also donated money to Obama and Biden. So Hillary is not the only one with shady supporters. And let’s not forget Obama and Rezko. I don’t recall Obama ever returning the plot of land back to Rezko or giving back the money Rezko helped him raise. This holier than thou attitude by Obama supporters are amusing. And by the way, Obama also takes money from state lobbyists with federal interests, lobbyists’ law firms, ex lobbyists, lobbyists’ families, as well as obtaining help from federal lobbyists in fundraising. Neither of them are pillars of cleanliness so let’s not have one-sided illusions about that. As far as I’m concerned, the only candidates who can have holier than thou attitude are Dr. Paul and Kucinich (and perhaps Gravel).

the censorship excercised from the Times is sickening. your failure to put up relevant posts that show hypocrisy wihtin the media, that the Times is also guilty of, is a disgrace coming from an organization that claims to be credible.

Obama did give the money related to Rezko to charity. He has also made the decision not to take money from the lobbyists, though you don’t think that’s enough. I find your logic contrived. Instead of criticizing Hillary for not doing the right thing other candidates are doing, you, in turn, criticize other candidates who try to move to the right direction for not doing enough. I find this double standard puzzling. In your eager defense of Hillary Clinton, you are not giving other candidates due credits for at least attempting to do the right thing. Until public campaign finance is a reality, we can’t expect the political campaigns to be clean overnight but we should applaud any attempt to move to that direction, even though those gestures may not have comprehensive bearing and can only have symbolic significance. Any change starts from something small, something symbolic. At least it is better than staying the course and waiting for a revolution. I don’t expect Obama to trace every dollar to its roots or spend all his time trying to return money to the lobbyist’s wife’s cousin’s son… But in absolute terms, can you say that Obama’s refusal to accept money from lobbyists is a bad thing? I don’t think anyone with the right mind would think what he is doing is a bad thing. If it is not a bad thing, then why shouldn’t he be given credits for it? And if it is not a bad thing, why is it wrong to expect Hillary to do the same thing? Precisely because Hillary is not doing the same thing, therefore, her supporters like you get defensive and use this all-or-nothing logic to fault other candidates for not doing more or not going all the way, as if Obama, the one who tries to makes some changes, is worse than Hillary who simply refuses to do anything at all. You have all the right to expect Obama or other candidates to do more, then you should apply the same standard to Hillary.

Lillay, did Obama give the land back to Rezko? I don’t think so. Do I think he should? I personally don’t care. Should Obama return the money to Hsu? (Obama supporters are saying Hillary should give money back to Hsu). I personally don’t care. My honest opinion? I think the campaign finance system is broken. I really do hope that the next president and Congress implement public-funded elections — something like “everyone gets $10 million and that’s it” with absolutely no loopholes. But until the rule is mandated for everyone, I don’t see why Democrats should take the higher ground here and handicap themselves. Fortunately, Democrats have been beating the Republicans at fundraising in the primaries but we’ll have to see come the general election. What bothers me about Obama is actually not so much Obama. It’s his supporters who apply a double standard. (i.e. Hillary should return Hsu’s money but not Obama? Hillary should return Gupta’s money but Obama shouldn’t return Rezko’s land?) But if you actually look at those who donate to Obama and Edwards, you’ll see all the people and entities I mentioned above (state lobbyists with federal interests, obtaining help from lobbyists in fundraising…. Boston Globe and several other news articles reported this). The real question is – are Obama and Edwards any less beholden to lobbyists if they donate money through their attorneys or families or help them raise money by throwing fundraisers as opposed to just giving the money themselves? I don’t think so. And if Obama and Edwards don’t want lobbyists’ money, why are they taking money from state lobbyists with federal interest? What I don’t like is the hypocrisy. They pat themselves on the back and lead Americans to believe they are taking the higher ground here, when in reality, I don’t see that they are any less beholden to lobbyists who help them raise money or these huge bundlers who obviously want something for their support. To believe that Obama and Edwards are not beholden to corporate interests because they don’t take federal lobbyists’ money directly is idealistic. My point is that they are all shady and influenced by lobbyists and bundlers. I would rather a candidate just be upfront about it. But hey, it’s campaign time and Obama and Edwards are perfectly entitled to spin this to their advantage. It’s politics after all, and it seems to be working. I just find it amusing that people eat it up so eagerly.

I find all of this amusing. People like Hsu are well know in the familiar circles of political favors land. Why else would they donate? If you want favors, you have to give money to people with power. Its that simple. Its the price of doing business anywhere in the world; especially here in the U.S. During the 90’s, having coffee at the white house with Pres Clinton was for people that made a $30,000 donation. I don’t know if Hillary served it or not. How soon we forget.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…